Our power-hungry, money-grubbing politicians are licking their lips in anticipation of enacting legislation to bring about ostensible reductions in CO2. Although they know their actions will exert absolutely no effect upon climate or temperature, they eagerly recognize these actions will establish a process of global governance regulating our energy, economic, and political systems. Before we meekly acquiesce to the end of the American Experiment nullifying the industrial age, let’s give consideration to a few facts.
First, the rapidly growing evidence of real science indicates that the proponents of human-caused global warming are charlatans. No warming has occurred during the past decade and a cooling period is at hand despite the continuing linear increase in CO2. The fakers promoting this fraud are desperately working to change the lexicon from global warming to climate change so that any form of extreme weather can be claimed in support of their groundless theories. Next, the incessant claim of overwhelming consensus among scientists is a blatant lie. Thirdly, the policies being championed belie their deceptive motivations.
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has just released an updated version of their petition containing the names of over 31,000 scientists (over 9,000 of whom are PHDs) stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” Contrary to what the liars will claim, each signatory of this petition has been vetted for authenticity of credentials and purpose. In OISM’s previous survey decried by these liars, the only signature proven to be a fake was one fraudulently submitted by Greenpeace who then tried to use it as an example that the petition was flawed. These Marxists will stop at nothing to destroy our country.
These liars want a carbon cap and trading system imposed rather than a carbon tax, although both are based on an invalid premise. They want the trading scheme because the resulting “tax” will be hidden and will not be seen as a tax. They want our ire directed against the energy companies and not government’s devious policies. A carbon tax at least holds everyone directly accountable for the release of carbon, and everyone could decide for themselves if the true facts justified the imposition of the tax.